Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Remembering Our Lady of Guadalupe
Fighting Irish Thomas ^ | 12-12-06 | Tom O'Toole

Posted on 12/12/2009 9:13:32 AM PST by mlizzy

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-76 last
To: OpusatFR

Dei Genitrix,
quem totus non capit orbis,
in tua se clausit viscera
factus homo.

51 posted on 12/13/2009 3:57:28 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o (I can't get enough of this.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

The Lord Hears the Cry of the Poor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QI9h7B8L71U

He gave us such a mother and such Grace of Salvation for we are so very poor.


52 posted on 12/13/2009 4:14:21 PM PST by OpusatFR (Tagline not State Approved. Thoughts not State Approved. Actions not State Approved)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: nmh
Evidently nothing is so uncivilized as disagreeing with somebody who call one a Satan worshiper! I'm SUCH a brute.

Okay, pro-forma: We can't STOP giving Satan standing through paying homage to Mary because we never STARTED giving standing through paying homage to Mary.

Yes we are to honor our EARTHLY mother and father. Mary is not our earthly mother.

The Baptized are members of the body of Christ. That body was born by Mary. So she is our mother by our adoption in Christ.
-- Further, I do not find that Moses wrote Honor your EARTHLY father and mother. (I don't understand why the Bible, as written, so often troubles people.) And I expect my adopted nephew and niece to honor their parents.

[10] As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
and
The only one that is righteous is Christ (God).

On the contrary: Jesus asks, "Why do you call me good?" IF we are to take these sweeping statements with the modern logical interpretation of "no one" etc. Then we must conclude EITHER that Jesus was not good OR that he was not named in the Bible. So it makes as much sense to be open to the Psalmist's saying there is none that is righteous is not to be taken in a completely exhaustive sense.

The following is not dispositive so I don't offer it as a proof but as an indication of a line of thought: If Mary is described as κεχαριτομένε it would be useful to wonder what perfected grace (it is a feminine perfect passive participle) might be. We look forward to being sinless and to being reunited with our bodies. None of these things will be merited, they will all be graces perfected in us in the future.

While it IS understandably controversial, it is not clearly unbiblical to conclude that the perfection of grace would include sinlessness and being reunited with one's body after death. These are what we assert about Mary.

Further, something Protestants don't often understand about the Immaculate conception, Mary is sinless, we hold, by the prevenient grace of Christ, rescuing her from the cesspool of sin BEFORE she fell in, while we are rescued AFTER we fall in. So to attribute sinlessness to Mary(at least as we do in the Catholic Church is NOT to detract from Christ's saving work (in our view) but rather to say it is more splendid than ever., FAR more splendid than one might dare to hope.

We certainly can and should pray for others,
however it it the Holy Spirit that intercedes for any of us; not Mary or any other dead sinner.
Rom.8:26
[26] Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.

Our Lord says that God is the God of the living, for all live to Him. So to characterize anyone as "dead" is troublesome and may be found to be going against Scripture. We, like Mary, live in the Spirit, and it is only because we do so that our intercession or hers is invited. Also Romans 8:26 has no word that indicates exclusivity or the manner of the Holy Spirit's intercession. Just as (we hold) the Holy Spirit prompts you to prayer and, as it were, conducts that prayer through Christ to the Father, so the same Spirit prompts intercessors united by the same Spirit in the body of Christ. Just as my Protestant mother-in-law, a mighty prayer warrior, intercedes by grace and with the prompting and assistance of the Holy Spirit, so also Mary intercedes. We see no contradiction between Rom 8:26 (one of my favorite passages, one I think VERY important and much neglected) and asking each other or the saints in heaven to pray for us.

What always troubles me is why the BIBLE upsets people.

I share that trouble. Leaving aside its wonderful inspiration and the great gift that it is, it is also beautiful and endlessly fascinating.

However, as I hope I have shown or, at least persuasively suggested, the Bible and the conclusions people think they have drawn from it are not the same thing. Two people can look at the same Bible, even the same verses and find very different things in them.

As to not wanting to argue, I want to say this gently and I hope you will read it gently.

Yours was the second post on this thread and your first paragraph ended with:
Stop aiding Satan and being distracted by Mary.Stop aiding Satan and being distracted by Mary.

I can see that this accusation was motivated by a desire to save us from error and to urge us toward the truth, the glorious truth of the Gospel of the Love of God in Christ Jesus.

Can you see that telling me that I am aiding Satan and am distracted by my devotion to Mary (especially when my EXPERIENCE as a convert to Catholicism is that Mary ever says, "Do whatever HE tells you," and, while gently encouraging me refuses to let me stop with her but urges me on to her Son) might be mistaken for a kind of insult?

I just suggested that you were practicing hit-and-run by posting and then not coming back to deal with answers to your post. You concluded that I was in the gutter.

You by comparison, told me I was aiding Satan, giving him standing, and was distracted. I never said about you anything half as nasty as what you said about us, yet you responded angrily and dismissively to me. At least I addressed the points you raised.

May I gently suggest to you that some of us Catholics have read Scripture, take it seriously, have an intense and thoughtful piety, and are sort of nonplussed when someone, without supporting arguments tells us we are aiding Satan?

May I suggest further that to say or suggest that we are upset by the Bible when it's not the Bible itself but particular interpretations that upset us seems to be well, not quite fair. It's demeaning. I didn't study Greek and Hebrew because the Bible upsets me. We have a slightly different Bible, but we read mostly the same texts. We have spent no less time than Protestants thinking about them. To suggest that because we have reached different conclusions we are upset about the Bible seems at the very best, a little misplaced.

May you also have a blessed Christmas, and may the joy of the Christ child fill your whole year, your whole life.

53 posted on 12/13/2009 6:19:19 PM PST by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

Wow. That’s really pretty.


54 posted on 12/13/2009 6:21:35 PM PST by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
So simple faith means NOT trusting the words of Jesus as the Bible presents them?

Yeah. He didn't tell us how. This makes it interesting that a lot of sola Scriptura Protestants are so persuaded that we're doing it wrong, huh?

One of the things which makes defending the true Church so interesting is the minute we are done dealing with an attack about how we philosophize and are too sophisticated we have to wheel to deal with an attack on our trustingly blind approach to our religion.

55 posted on 12/13/2009 6:27:00 PM PST by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
What's the point in a wafer that goes into and through your system in 20 minutes??? How does Jesus get from your intestines to your soul???

We didn't invent it. Why do you suppose Jesus came up with such a strange ritual?

Your idea, that he was prescribing that we eat a cracker to remember him by, is no less odd. Why eat a cracker? Why should a cracker remind me of Jesus? Why not a steak, or a slice of apple? Why eat anything at all?

Stop second-guessing God, and go with what he gave you.

56 posted on 12/13/2009 10:13:44 PM PST by Campion ("President Barack Obama" is an anagram for "An Arab-backed Imposter")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: nmh
People on this thread are down right UGLY when it comes to Biblical truth. Those folks should be wondering, after they calm down, about why Biblical TRUTH is so upsetting and makes them so angry.

Because, nmh, you aren't teaching "Biblical truth," but only grave error.

Never minimize Mary. She stood there and watched her beloved son torn to pieces and nailed to a tree, for the sake of ungrateful sinners. She did so for one reason, and one reason only.

God wanted it.

57 posted on 12/13/2009 10:16:22 PM PST by Campion ("President Barack Obama" is an anagram for "An Arab-backed Imposter")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg

Thanking you for this post.
(from one convert to another :-) )


58 posted on 12/13/2009 11:06:27 PM PST by Running On Empty ( The three sorriest words: "It's too late")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Campion

Thank you, Campion, for this post.


59 posted on 12/13/2009 11:07:10 PM PST by Running On Empty ( The three sorriest words: "It's too late")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Campion
We didn't invent it. Why do you suppose Jesus came up with such a strange ritual?

That's the point...Jesus never came up with the ritual...You guys did...

Your idea, that he was prescribing that we eat a cracker to remember him by, is no less odd. Why eat a cracker? Why should a cracker remind me of Jesus? Why not a steak, or a slice of apple? Why eat anything at all?

A couple of reasons...Bread was a main staple back then...

And, they apparently didn't slice their bread...They broke it...Jesus said break this bread, which is my body, which is (will be) broken, for you...The breaking of the bread is key...We are to remember Jesus when we break bread...

And I don't believe Jesus said that wine was His blood...He said drink the cup...He focused on the cup...He focused on drinking more than the contents of the cup...

Breaking the bread and drinking the wine, which represents the spilled blood is the key...Breaking and drinking...

Why don't you guys eat raw hamburger??? Jesus said, 'my flesh is meat, eat it'...

You get eternal life from eating Jesus' flesh??? Once ought to be enough then, eh??? Why's it keep wearing out???

Stop second-guessing God, and go with what he gave you.

Not second guessing at all...Reading the rest of the scripture and seeing how it fits together...

60 posted on 12/13/2009 11:19:45 PM PST by Iscool (I don't understand all that I know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

Just curious: Do you think the Last Supper was a Passover meal?


61 posted on 12/14/2009 3:12:00 AM PST by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Running On Empty

xoxox


62 posted on 12/14/2009 4:50:04 AM PST by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

You have GOT to read Aquinas, specifically the treatise on the sacraments. Not to be persuaded but to get a notion of the weird way we think. (related to previous exchange about philosophy.)


63 posted on 12/14/2009 5:03:42 AM PST by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
That's the point...Jesus never came up with the ritual...You guys did.

My point is precisely that that's wrong. In fact, there was a "ritual" there already, called the Haggadah. Holy Communion was added to that ritual by Jesus himself at the last supper. Later on, other prayers were added, and the whole thing was adapted to celebrations other than that of Passover.

The whole process was very, very far along by AD 400. If the Mass is a ritual we invented, your NT is a book we invented, because they came into existence in the same period of time.

Breaking the bread and drinking the wine, which represents the spilled blood is the key...Breaking and drinking

The key to what? Why bother to eat a snack to remember Jesus? Jesus wasn't a snack.

If you think what we do is ludicrous, I don't see that what you do is any less ludicrous.

64 posted on 12/14/2009 5:53:08 AM PST by Campion ("President Barack Obama" is an anagram for "An Arab-backed Imposter")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Campion
My point is precisely that that's wrong. In fact, there was a "ritual" there already, called the Haggadah. Holy Communion was added to that ritual by Jesus himself at the last supper. Later on, other prayers were added, and the whole thing was adapted to celebrations other than that of Passover.

Jesus didn't become the Passover Lamb until He was sacrificed...The communion was not only to be done along with the Haggadah but whenever bread was broken, to remember the sacrifice...

1Co 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

The key to what? Why bother to eat a snack to remember Jesus? Jesus wasn't a snack.

The key to the reason for breaking the breaking the bread and drinking from the cup...

The breaking of the bread represents His broken body and the cup represents His shed blood...IF you just stick a cracker in your mouth, and don't bother drinking from the cup, what do you get out of it???

65 posted on 12/14/2009 10:58:21 AM PST by Iscool (I don't understand all that I know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

Your interpretation is just that, your interpretation.

You are in error. Not us, and not the Christians who believed in the Eucharistic Presence from Christ onward.

“Christ takes John 6:35 far beyond symbolism by saying, “For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed” (John 6:55).

He continues: “As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me” (John 6:57). The Greek word used for “eats” (trogon) is very blunt and has the sense of “chewing” or “gnawing.” This is not the language of metaphor.”

“Paul wrote to the Corinthians: “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” (1 Cor. 10:16). So when we receive Communion, we actually participate in the body and blood of Christ, not just eat symbols of them. Paul also said, “Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself” (1 Cor. 11:27, 29). “To answer for the body and blood” of someone meant to be guilty of a crime as serious as homicide. How could eating mere bread and wine “unworthily” be so serious? Paul’s comment makes sense only if the bread and wine became the real body and blood of Christ.”

” Ignatius of Antioch, who had been a disciple of the apostle John and who wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans about A.D. 110, said, referring to “those who hold heterodox opinions,” that “they abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again” (6:2, 7:1).

Forty years later, Justin Martyr, wrote, “Not as common bread or common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, . . . is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66:1–20).”

http://www.catholic.com/library/Christ_in_the_Eucharist.asp


66 posted on 12/14/2009 11:16:51 AM PST by OpusatFR (Tagline not State Approved. Thoughts not State Approved. Actions not State Approved)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: OpusatFR; Iscool
I feel like I may be beginning to see where Iscool is coming from. We know it involves a disdain or disapproval of anything "religious." I believe it was Iscool who earlier used to write about the good shepherd leading his sheep OUT of the fold. So I'm guessing that he would offer a very fluid interpretation of the "diversity of gifts" passages and would reject their being associated with any office or status, but would consider them functions which now and again so to speak "alighted upon" this or that member of the not empirically defined church. And, it we look at the "this" in As often as ye eat this bread, and take literally the synedoche of "cup" we then have ANY act of eating and drinking as a proper anamnetic event, in which the eating and drinking "represent" all the things which are said about the Eucharist.

This would be a kind of "hidden in plain sight" perception which could not be articulated openly because the person who did so would end up being head of his own sect or order or whatever, in a manner similar to what happened to St. Francis.

So the "fathers" whom we cite just didn't get it. They passed the hidden in plain sight teaching on without understanding it. And in every generation the Spirit informs certain people, illuminating them, giving them knowledge and wisdom about the true faith, which we, sort of like worker bees bringing royal jelly to larvae who will become our queens, service without understanding.

One PROBLEM with this is that, in certain strict versions of this kind of belief, one would have to deny holding it when it was stated all up front and everything as I have done. So I'll never know if I'm right!

67 posted on 12/14/2009 12:33:45 PM PST by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg

“And, it we look at the “this” in As often as ye eat this bread, and take literally the synedoche of “cup” we then have ANY act of eating and drinking as a proper anamnetic event, in which the eating and drinking “represent” all the things which are said about the Eucharist.”

Well, in that case chocolate would be perfectly appropriate, perferably Russell Stover mixed nuts and creams.

I think Heaven would give pause for that, don’t you?


68 posted on 12/14/2009 2:04:51 PM PST by OpusatFR (Tagline not State Approved. Thoughts not State Approved. Actions not State Approved)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: OpusatFR
If it's been me, it would have been truffles and Scotch.

I think every meal is an opportunity to remember the Eucharistic mystery, even the paschal mystery. When I lived on the streets in the late 60's I was very much struck with the mystery of the sacrifice of those from whom I begged my food and with the notion that every meal, even if vegetarian, was tied up with life and death.

But still, I aver there is one uniquely sacred meal which represents, contains, and conveys the mystery.

69 posted on 12/14/2009 5:15:46 PM PST by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg
You have GOT to read Aquinas, specifically the treatise on the sacraments. Not to be persuaded but to get a notion of the weird way we think. (related to previous exchange about philosophy.)

It's clear Aquinas had way, way, way too much time on his hands...

Objection 1:
It seems that no man can be saved without Baptism. For our Lord said (Jn. 3:5): "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." But those alone are saved who enter God's kingdom. Therefore none can be saved without Baptism, by which a man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost.

Aquinas starts out wrong here with baptism...We are not born again of water and the Spirit...We are already born of water, now we need to be born of the Spirit...

Objection 2:
Further, in the book De Eccl. Dogm. xli, it is written: "We believe that no catechumen, though he die in his good works, will have eternal life, except he suffer martyrdom, which contains all the sacramental virtue of Baptism." But if it were possible for anyone to be saved without Baptism, this would be the case specially with catechumens who are credited with good works, for they seem to have the "faith that worketh by charity" (Gal. 5:6). Therefore it seems that none can be saved without Baptism.

Here, Aquinas claims that if you are not baptized physically, you can still go to heaven if you were killed for your Christianity, as long as you did good works...

Kind of impossible to square that with scripture...

Objection 3:
Further, as stated above (A[1]; Q[65], A[4]), the sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation. Now that is necessary "without which something cannot be" (Metaph. v). Therefore it seems that none can obtain salvation without Baptism.

On the contrary, Augustine says (Super Levit. lxxxiv) that "some have received the invisible sanctification without visible sacraments, and to their profit; but though it is possible to have the visible sanctification, consisting in a visible sacrament, without the invisible sanctification, it will be to no profit." Since, therefore, the sacrament of Baptism pertains to the visible sanctification, it seems that a man can obtain salvation without the sacrament of Baptism, by means of the invisible sanctification.

Augustine is on the right track but he eventually jumps the track...

I answer that, The sacrament or Baptism may be wanting to someone in two ways. First, both in reality and in desire; as is the case with those who neither are baptized, nor wished to be baptized: which clearly indicates contempt of the sacrament, in regard to those who have the use of the free-will. Consequently those to whom Baptism is wanting thus, cannot obtain salvation: since neither sacramentally nor mentally are they incorporated in Christ, through Whom alone can salvation be obtained.

Aquinas is right on the edge, but he never gets it...

Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of "faith that worketh by charity," whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: "I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the grace he prayed for."

It's the blind leading the blind, one after another like dominos

Reply to Objection 1: As it is written (1 Kings 16:7), "man seeth those things that appear, but the Lord beholdeth the heart." Now a man who desires to be "born again of water and the Holy Ghost" by Baptism, is regenerated in heart though not in body. thus the Apostle says (Rom. 2:29) that "the circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not of men but of God."

Aquinas has got it here but he don't know what he's got...

Reply to Objection 2: No man obtains eternal life unless he be free from all guilt and debt of punishment. Now this plenary absolution is given when a man receives Baptism, or suffers martyrdom:

Aquinas blew it here...He's just as blind as a bat coming in backwards...

for which reason is it stated that martyrdom "contains all the sacramental virtue of Baptism," i.e. as to the full deliverance from guilt and punishment. Suppose, therefore, a catechumen to have the desire for Baptism (else he could not be said to die in his good works, which cannot be without "faith that worketh by charity"), such a one, were he to die, would not forthwith come to eternal life, but would suffer punishment for his past sins, "but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire" as is stated 1 Cor. 3:15.

And of course, Aquinas mis-quotes the verse to justify his theology...The fire didn't burn the Christian, it burned his bad works...

Reply to Objection 3: The sacrament of Baptism is said to be necessary for salvation in so far as man cannot be saved without, at least, Baptism of desire; "which, with God, counts for the deed" (Augustine, Enarr. in Ps. 57).

There it is in a nutshell...But it flew right past Aquinas...It was too high over his head to reach it...

The real Baptism of Desire in the scriptures results in a Spiritual Baptism...No water involved...Aquinas talks about it but he doesn't get it...

If one comes to Jesus and says, 'Lord, I'm coming to you the only way I know how, please take me, it's a done deal...That initiates the baptism of desire...No water...

Jesus performs an operation...A spiritual operation...A circumcision...A circumcision of the heart...

Your new man is killed, buried and resurrected...Your old man (your flesh) is still there...But it's not connected...

Here's Aquinas again:

a man who desires to be "born again of water and the Holy Ghost" by Baptism, is regenerated in heart though not in body. thus the Apostle says (Rom. 2:29) that "the circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not of men but of God."

Born again of water is not scriptural...Aquinas added that to make baptism mean water baptism...If he would have left out the water, Aquinas would have gotten the baptism of the Holy Ghost, but he missed it...

70 posted on 12/14/2009 5:56:49 PM PST by Iscool (I don't understand all that I know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: OpusatFR
we actually participate in the body and blood of Christ,

Try as you might, you can not get this sentence to mean you are supposed to eat the flesh and blood of Jesus...Participate in the body and blood???

“To answer for the body and blood” of someone meant to be guilty of a crime as serious as homicide. How could eating mere bread and wine “unworthily” be so serious?

Because it's a heart condition...

” Ignatius of Antioch, who had been a disciple of the apostle John and who wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans about A.D. 110, said, referring to “those who hold heterodox opinions,” that “they abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again” (6:2, 7:1).

I wish you guy would quit bringing up Ignatius...Half of the writings attributed to him were proven to be forgeries and the other half are suspected to be forgeries as well...You using Ignatius as an authority is meaningless to me and many, many others...

which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him,

Now this is just being downright dishonest...Jesus did NOT set down any Eucharist prayer for you to turn bread and wine into flesh and blood...

71 posted on 12/14/2009 6:07:27 PM PST by Iscool (I don't understand all that I know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
I was kind of hoping we could get beyond the nanny-nanny-boo-boo mode of conversation and take a look at stuff together. The part of Aquinas I was thinking of was the part where he addresses your questions about the Eucharist.

Reading him to find out how very wrong he is will obstruct a lot of understanding. Reading the questions just to find the answers is the wrong way to go about getting anything out of it.

72 posted on 12/14/2009 6:15:14 PM PST by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg
I believe it was Iscool who earlier used to write about the good shepherd leading his sheep OUT of the fold

That wasn't me...

So the "fathers" whom we cite just didn't get it. They passed the hidden in plain sight teaching on without understanding it. And in every generation the Spirit informs certain people, illuminating them, giving them knowledge and wisdom about the true faith, which we, sort of like worker bees bringing royal jelly to larvae who will become our queens, service without understanding.

That pretty much sums it up except that the Holy Spirit gives every Christian knowledge in every generation but far too many people are too intellectual to accept it as it is...

Referring to your great teacher Aquinas again; he adds words to scripture, he leaves out scripture to give you his version of what the scriptures mean...Does anyone correct him for doing this??? No, just continue to follow his teaching...

73 posted on 12/14/2009 6:27:16 PM PST by Iscool (I don't understand all that I know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Iscool; nmh
Thanks for clarifying that it was somebody else who was the "Church of no church" member. Dang, I wish I could remember who it was.

No, just continue to follow his teaching...

Personally, I'm far more likely to be attracted to the teaching of someone who takes the trouble to understand my thought than somebody who is too busy stating how wrong I am to know what I think and why I think it. The reason I was so tart with nmh, who seems to think I am rude, is that he at once exhibited a misunderstanding of Catholic thought and piety together with a certainty that it supported Satan somehow. I am especially impatient with the "often wrong, never in doubt" crowd.

The folks I hang with don't "follow" Aquinas's teaching. They try to understand it and, sometimes, to criticize it.

And yes, I think it's been established that we approach Scripture differently.

74 posted on 12/15/2009 4:19:03 AM PST by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

Let’s just leave it there then.

The Eucharist is bound within faith and the very words of Christ, and you do not have that faith. There is no possible way I can put it having given you what is True and if you refuse, my duty is finished.

Peace to you. Have a joyous Christmas.


75 posted on 12/15/2009 5:51:12 AM PST by OpusatFR (Tagline not State Approved. Thoughts not State Approved. Actions not State Approved)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg

“I was very much struck with the mystery of the sacrifice of those from whom I begged my food and with the notion that every meal, even if vegetarian, was tied up with life and death.”

We need food desperately to live, just small amounts can keep us alive, but we must eat.

How profound, our Lord knowing this makes the Paschal meal the means to provide eternal life to the soul.

“I am the bread of life. Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died; this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.”


76 posted on 12/15/2009 6:00:07 AM PST by OpusatFR (Tagline not State Approved. Thoughts not State Approved. Actions not State Approved)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-76 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson